The Grace of Unity

Eph. 4:1-3

I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

With the great doctrines of Chapters 1-3 as our foundation, we turn now to the practical portion of the Epistle. As noted in the “Introduction,” this can be expressed in several ways:

· Chapters 1‑3 present our Riches in Christ; 4‑6 show us our Responsibilities in Christ.

· Chapters 1‑3 present our Wealth in Christ; 4‑6 show us Walk in Christ.

· Chapters 1‑3 contain the truth Stated; 4‑6 contain the truth Applied.

· Chapters 1‑3 present our Heritage in Christ; 4‑6 present our Life in Christ.

· Chapters 1‑3 present the Exposition of what we have in Christ; 4‑6 give us the Exhortation of what we are to do in Christ.

To express this in still another way, based on the Doctrine of Chapters 1-3, we come now to the Duty that it demands. This does not imply that the first half of Ephesians in not at all practical. We have, of course, seen many practical principles. Rather, what we see in Chapter 4-6 are specific applications of the doctrines in Chapter 1-3.

The key word in Chapters 4-6 is walk, and we find it five times (4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15). The Greek in all five occurrences is peripateō (peri, “about” or “around,” and pateō, “to walk”), and so literally means “to walk about, to walk around, to walk concerning.” In Classical Greek this word was used only in the literal sense and meant strolling and stopping, as someone would walk about in the market place. It was never used in a figurative sense as it is in the New Testament.[1] Used in the figurative sense, it speaks of “conduct of life,” that is, how we “how we walk about,” how we conduct ourselves as we walk through life. How, then, are we to conduct ourselves? Chapters 4-6 reveal seven ways in which we are to walk, each of which in-turn is based on related doctrine in Chapters 1-3, as the following table illustrates.

Doctrine and Duty in Ephesians

THE DUTY	THE DOCTRINE
Walk in unity (4:1‑16)	1:22-23; 2:16,21-22; 3:6
Walk in purity (4:17‑32)	1:4
Walk in love (5:1‑7)	3:17-19
Walk in light (5:8‑14)	1:18
Walk in wisdom (5:15‑17)	1:8,17; 3:10
Walk in submission (5:18‑6:9)	3:8
Walk in victory (6:10‑20)	1:19-21

So Paul does not simply write about unrelated thoughts, a little “potpourri of principles” as it were, rather he writes about objective truth on which he then bases proper conduct of life.

The first reality of our Christian walk is to walk in unity (4:1-16) As one commentator writes, “It is clear as daylight and universally admitted that this section, especially in it opening verse, emphasizes unity.”[2] The first thing one notices is that of all the principles of the Christian walk, unity is mentioned first. This is not an accident. Paul, in fact, dealt with this first in another letter, his first letter to the Corinthians. With all the problems in that Church—and there were many—he dealt first, and at great length, with unity (I Cor. 1:10-3:23). Why? Because without unity, there can be no growth, joy, or effective witness. So important is unity in the Body of Christ that our Lord prayed several times that His people “may be one” in His high priestly prayer (Jn. 17:11, 21-23). This was also the precedent set in the Early Church. All that they did—their worship, their witness, and their willingness to serve—was in unity:

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved (Acts 2:47-48).

Notice again that the first thing listed is unity—“continuing daily with one accord.” So the first practical reality that must characterize the believer’s heart is unity with other believers. To understand this, we need to examine four principles in 4:1-16 in the next few studies:

· The Grace of Unity (4:1-3)

· The Ground of Unity (4:4-6)

· The Gifts for Unity (4:7-11)

· The Growth of Unity (4:12-16)

In this study, we’ll first examine three principles concerning the grace of unity: the Meaning, the Motive, and the Maintenance of unity. For the sake of definition, we’ll look first at verse 3 and then verses 1-2.

I. The Meaning of Unity (v.3b)

. . . unity . . .

Like never before in history we hear much about unity today. But much of what we hear is not based on a proper understanding of what true unity is. Let us, therefore, consider first what unity is not and then what unity is.

What Unity is Not

First, unity is not compromise, or another word that is prevalent today, tolerance. Unity does not mean we throw out all doctrine so that everyone can “get along.” This is perhaps the most common misconception of our day. It is argued, “Let’s not have any distinctives or any doctrinal barriers that might divide us; let’s just agree on love and unite on moral issues, such as abortion and gay marriage.”

Second, unity is not some common brotherhood or mutual camaraderie. Unity does not necessarily exist just because we are members of the same company, union, association, or even church denomination.

Third, unity is not uniformity. As Webster (11^th Edition Collegiate) defines it, “uniformity” means “having always the same form, manner, or degree; not varying . . . of the same form with others . . . unvaried appearance of surface, pattern, or color.” Unity does not exist just because everyone is a cookie cutter cutout who walks, talks, acts, thinks, and even dresses alike, as is common in some Bible colleges. Such uniformity is not Biblical. As we’ll see in the gifts for unity in verses 7-11, this violates the context of the passage. God didn’t makes us alike, and neither does He give us all the same spiritual gifts. God gives us unity, but He also gives us diversity. You can create uniformity from pressure without, but unity comes only from power within.

What Unity Is

The Greek for unity is henotēs, which basically means “unanimity and agreement.” One Greek authority, however, provides a marvelous contrast between how the Greeks, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), and the New Testament used this word:

In Greek and Roman philosophy the unity of God and the world is demanded by educated reason. In the Old Testament [the Septuagint], the unity of God is a confession derived from experience of God’s unique reality. The decisive advance in the New Testament, caused by God Himself, is the basing of the unity and uniqueness of God on the unique revelation through and in the one man Jesus Christ.[3]

To simplify, we base unity either on reason, experience, or the person and work of Jesus Christ. Most of today’s so-called unity is based either on experience (“We’ve all experienced the same thing, so we’re in this thing together”) or reason (“To accomplish more, we’ll get rid of our doctrinal differences”). While these sound noble, they are unscriptural. True, Biblical unity is this: the unanimous agreement concerning the unique revelation of God through Jesus Christ. Unless we can agree on the person and work of Jesus Christ, there can be no unity. It is as simple as that. That and that alone must be our foundation for unity.

As Paul told the Galatians, “As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:9). The words “as we have said before” indicate that Paul had said this many times in his ministry. Doctrine, therefore, must be the ground of unity, as Paul makes clears in verses 4-6.

Who, then, produces this unity? Certainly not man. This is not something we can produce like we would create “school spirit.” Rather, as our text says, it is the Holy Spirit who produces this unity. Rather what we are to do is to keep the Spirit has produced through Christ.

Notice the subtlety of the word keep, which translates the Greek tēreō, “to keep by guarding, to guard by exercising watchful care, to guard as with a fortress.” The picture here is a fortress around which we post armed guards, set Claymore mines, erect concertina wire, and do all else that we can to guard this unity.

But this is not enough for Paul, for he adds the word endeavoring, which is the Greek spoudazōµ, “to make haste, to be zealous or eager, to give diligence.” It speaks of determined effort and exertion. Paul uses it when writing to Timothy about a pastor’s responsibility, “Study (spoudazō; the Old English word “study” means “absorbed contemplation”) to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Tim. 2:15).[4]

So putting it all together, it is the responsibility of every believer to diligently, zealously, absorbingly guard the unity that Christ has provided. We do not produce unity because we can’t produce it. When we try, we end up with uniformity or other false unity. Rather we are to guard the unity that the Spirit produces in Christ. In essence, Paul is saying, “Don’t muck it up. Don’t try to make something you can’t. Just guard what God has already done.”

As commentator William Hendrickson correctly observed, the unity in this passage “is not external and mechanical, but internal and organic. It is not superimposed, but, by virtue of the power of the indwelling Christ, proceeds from with the organism of the church. Those, therefore, who in the ecumenical zeal are anxious to erase all denominational boundaries and to create a mammoth super-church can find no comfort here.”[5]

The most graphic example in recent history of such an attempt to create unity where there could be no unity was the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium” (ECT) document that was written by two evangelicals a few years ago and signed by several others. It was designed to bring together Roman Catholics and Evangelicals for the purpose of evangelism and a “betterment of life in America.” While it clearly notes certain differences between Catholics and Protestants, it flatly denies the most important difference, namely, what it means to be saved! That fact immediately and fundamentally violates the true basis of unity we just examined. The ECT document also states that all Catholics and evangelicals hold the same faith and are brothers and sisters in Christ, when in reality, the two systems are exact opposites. Roman Catholicism is based solely on a sacramental, works-oriented “salvation,” not on God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. All you have to do to prove this is ask anyone who was saved out of it. There can be no unity between these diametrically opposed systems.

One of the authors of the ECT document compounds his error in a book he wrote on unity. In it he “expounds” on our text like no one I have ever read or heard before. He maintains that while doctrinal agreement is essential in the Local Church (what he calls “the church particular”), such agreement is not required in “the church universal.” He further maintains that the reason it is essential at the local level is that without it the local church’s ability to worship is destroyed. He concludes, “The distinction is critical: uniformity within the church particular, but unity with diversity in the Body or church universal.”[6]

Lest I be accused of promoting disunity, I’ll say only one thing in love: this is plainly unscriptural. The text simply doesn’t say that, nor does the Bible anywhere differentiate between the local assembly and the universal body in respect to doctrinal purity. Over and over the Bible speaks of right doctrine and discernment of error (as we’ll examine closely in 4:14). And again, as Paul plainly states in Galatians 1:9, we are to curse anyone who preaches another Gospel, and Roman Catholicism (like Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, and all others) is another Gospel.

The author not only misuses the word “uniformity,” but then makes an even more serious error by implying that “diversity” refers to “doctrinal differences,” that we in the Universal Church can get along even in our diverse doctrinal positions. Such error is common when we fail to exposit the Scriptures, something the author seldom does or is even qualified to do. The context of Ephesians 4:1-16 clearly shows that “diversity” refers to spiritual gifts NOT doctrine. Paul’s point here is the same one he makes even more strongly in I Corinthians 12. Each one of us, having our own unique spiritual gifts, which have been imparted by the Holy Spirit, is as diverse in function and purpose as are an arm, a leg, and an eye on the body. But all those differences work together in harmony to edify the entire body.

So we say again, true Biblical unity is this: the unanimous agreement concerning the unique revelation of God through Jesus Christ. Where that cannot be agreed upon, there can be no unity. Tragically, even some evangelicals are abandoning this by redefining the Gospel and preaching Relativism.

Having emphasized that, may we not fail to recognize how truly sweet unity is when based on the right doctrine concerning Christ. It is unity that transcends denominations. We can agree to disagree on non-essentials, but we can unify on the one reality of Christ.

This is no better illustrated than in an incident Harry Ironside records in his commentary. Taken ill with typhoid during a series of meetings in Minneapolis, he was down for six weeks. After gaining enough strength to return home to California, friends helped him to the train and the conductor made up a special berth for him. As he lay in his berth the first morning out, he took out his Bible and began to read. As he read, a stout-looking German woman came walking by, noticed Ironside, and then stopped and asked, “Vat’s dat? A Bible?” “Yes,” Ironside replied. “Vell, you haf your morning vorship all by yourself?” she asked. “Vait, I go get my Bible and ve haf it together.”

A little later a tall gentleman came and stopped and said, “Reading ze Bible. Vell, I tank I get mine, too.” He was Norwegian. After a few minutes, Ironside was amazed at how many had gathered. Every day a crowd gathered, one day totaling twenty-eight. The conductor walked through all the cars announcing, “The camp meeting is starting in care number so-in-so. Any wanting to take advantage are invited.” They would sing, read, pray, and ask questions.

At the end of the trip in Sacramento, as people came to say goodbye, that dear German woman asked Ironside, “Vat denomination are you?” “Well,” Ironside replied, “I belong to same denomination that David did.” “Vat vas dat?” she asked. “I didn’t know David belonged to any.” Ironside replied, “David said, ‘I am a companion to all them that fear Thee and keep Thy precepts’ [Ps. 119:63].” “Yah, yah,” she said, “dat is a gute church belong to.”[7]

Ironside went on to write that do doubt there were many denominations represented in that group, but what mattered was that they were one in Christ. Minor points didn’t matter; the main point did, the unique revelation of God through Jesus Christ.

II. The Motive for Unity (v.1)

I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

The motive for unity is really two fold.

God Brought Unity Through Christ

The key here is the word therefore, and its importance cannot be overemphasized. It stands as a signpost to show us that there can be no separating doctrine from duty, that we simply cannot rightly accomplish the duty of Chapters 4-6 until we assimilate the doctrine of Chapters 1-3.

To see the true significance of this, a closer look is of great value. It’s amazing how many times the word therefore appears in Scripture. We see it, in fact, 1,237 times in our Authorized Version, and it is a worthwhile study in itself. The first occurrence, for example, is in Genesis 2:24. As a result of Adam’s statement concerning Eve being “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (v. 23), we then read, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Significantly, the first time we see the word therefore in Scripture, it is at the very foundation of the marriage relationship

Another instance is in Genesis 11:9. Because of man’s arrogance at the Tower of Babel, God instituted the parent languages of the earth, from which today’s total of over 3,000 developed, and scattered the people. Verse 9 declares, “Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” The word “Babel” is a play on words, as it transliterates the actual Hebrew word (pronounced baw-bel), which means “confusion.” Truly the result of rejecting God’s law, God’s Word, and God’s will is (therefore) confusion.

Of the 1,237 instances, 356 are in the New Testament, and every one is significant. The first, in Matthew 3:7-8 declares, “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.” The last is in Revelation 18:8, where of Babylon, the false religious system of Rome, it is written, “Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.”

In between those we note our Lord’s introduction of the Model Prayer, for instance, where He uses it twice: “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye,” followed then by the rest of the model (Matt. 6:7-9a). Also, in the Great Commission, our Lord said to His disciples, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.” Without Christ’s power, there could be no therefore.

We then find this word multiple times in every one of Paul’s epistles (except Titus), including seven here in Ephesians. Of special significance in our day are Paul’s parting words to Timothy. In light of growing apostasy, what did Paul challenge Timothy to do? Did he challenge Him to be an entertainer, or to be “seeker-sensitive,” “user-friendly,” or “purpose-driven.” Rather he commanded, “I charge thee therefore before God . . . Preach the word” (II Tim. 4:1-2). We find therefore also in the letters of Peter, James, and John. And on we could go for hours.

With that data in mind, let us consider the three-fold significance of the word therefore in Scripture.

First, the word therefore reminds us of the wholeness of scripture. No principle of Biblical interpretation is violated more than the “Contextual Principle,” which simply means that for proper interpretation every text must be viewed in light of its context, that is, the words that surround the text in question, the verses that surround the verse, and the basic theme of the book where the verse appears.

One example of this principle is in Ephesians 1:10: “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” Some interpreters use this verse to teach “universal redemption;” that is, everyone and everything shall be redeemed. But this verse teaches no such thing. The context clearly shows who the redeemed are, namely, those who believe in the blood of Christ as their redemption.

Consider II Corinthians 12:7‑10. Here Paul was reflecting on his “thorn in the flesh.” Those in today’s “healing movement” spiritualize this passage by saying Paul’s thorn in the flesh was a demon, but the context clearly indicates that it was a physical infirmity.

Another example appears in I Corinthians 9:27, where Paul writes about not becoming a castaway. Some teachers use to “prove” that believers can lose their salvation, but the context clearly talks about rewards for Christian service, not salvation.

The word therefore, however, is a reminder to examine Scripture within its context. II Thessalonians 2:14 and 16, for example, read:

Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace.

Taken this way, the Christian life is simply one of ease and a wait for coming glory. But verse 15 declares, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle,” showing that the Christian life is also one of struggle and conflict.

Scripture, then, must be viewed as a whole, as a unit. We must constantly compare Scripture with Scripture. (analogia scripturae, “the analogy of Scripture”).

Second, the word therefore is a word that indicates application. In every one of the examples we noted earlier, we read one statement, followed then by the word therefore and then another statement that applies what came before. Besides those, consider again II Corinthians 12:1-10, where Paul speaks of his sufferings and asks God to take away a certain unknown physical infirmity that plagued him. God’s response was, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” Paul then made the obvious application, “Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (v. 9).

Another interesting example is Galatians 4:16, of which every Christian needs reminding. What is the application when we tell rebellious people the Truth? Paul puts it in the form of a rhetorical question, “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”

Third, and most important of all, the word therefore shows not only application but also that application is always a result of doctrine. One of the most absurd concepts in our day is the idea, “Oh, we don’t want doctrine; we want something practice.” How can we apply what we don’t know? Doctrine must be the foundation that we then apply. Hebrews 4:15, for example, speaks of the doctrine our Lord’s high priestly office and his sinlessness: “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” There’s the doctrine of Christ’s Deity and His sinlessness. Based on that verse 16 then goes on to apply that doctrine: “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” Without the doctrine, we can’t have the application.

We can now see just how important therefore is our present text. Since the passage deals with unity, the word therefore clearly and dramatically demonstrates that we cannot have unity without the doctrine of Chapters 1-3. Martyn Lloyd-Jones rightly made this a major emphasis in his exposition of this passage:

Whatever be the unity of which the Apostle speaks, it is a unity that results directly from all he has been saying the first three chapters of the Epistle. You must not start in chapter 4 of the Epistle to the Ephesians. To do so is to violate the contest and to ignore the word “Therefore.” In other words you cannot have Christian unity unless it is based upon the great doctrines outlines in chapters 1-3. “Therefore!” So if anyone comes to you and says, “It does not much matter what you believe; if we call ourselves Christians, or if we believe in God in any sense, come let us all work together,” you should say in reply, “But, my dear sir, what about chapters 1 to 3 of the Epistle to the Ephesians? I know of no unity except that which is the outcome of, and the offspring of, all the great doctrines which the Apostle lays down in those chapters.” What ever this unity may be, we are compelled to say that it must be theological, if must be doctrinal, if must be based upon an understanding of the truth.[8]

Lloyd-Jones was absolutely correct decades ago, and is still correct today. With few exceptions, people go right to Ephesians 4 when talking about unity without even acknowledging the doctrine that precedes it. The author we noted earlier is guilty of this; he builds his entire argument for unity upon his opinion, not on the doctrine outlined earlier in the Epistle. This doctrine appears in no less than three passages:

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all (1:22-23).

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby . . . In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit (2:16, 21-22).

That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel (3:6).

Both a body and a building must be unified, and all this has been accomplished by the true gospel of Christ. Most unity talk today is based upon one word: LOVE. But the Bible says no such thing. Only when we acknowledge the finished work of Christ, that salvation is only in Him by grace through faith, can there be unity. As we will see in verse 5, there is only “one Lord” and “one faith.”

I just cannot help but interject here how many commentators and expositors miss this point. While many mention the transition from doctrine to duty marked by the word therefore, most fail to drive home the principle that doctrine matters when it comes to unity and that the word therefore underscores this truth. May we repeat, if we do not base unity on the truths of Chapters 1-3, we do not have and cannot have true unity. As we saw earlier, true Biblical unity is this: the unanimous agreement concerning the unique revelation of God through Jesus Christ, and it is this that Paul details in Chapters 1-3. As we’ll see later, Paul makes this even clearer in 4:4-6, where he gives us the ground, that is, the basis, for unity.

This leads to a second principle.

We Are Commanded to Keep this Unity

Once we recognize the true basis for our unity, we are then (and only then) commanded to “keep” (v. 3, tereō, “to guard as with a fortress”) that unity. To show how imperative this is, Paul uses the word beseech. The Greek here is parakaleō, a compound word made up of para, “beside,” and kaleō, “to call,” yielding the meaning “to call alongside.” Originally, it spoke of summoning someone and at times “to summon to one’s aid for help.” Its main three meanings in the New Testament, however, are reflected in our Authorized Version by three translations: “beseech,” that is, to plead with or implore (43 times), “comfort” (23 times), and “exhort” (21 times). In the present context, there is no doubt as to how Paul uses it; he implores and pleads with the Ephesians to certain behavior based on the doctrine of Chapters 1-3.

Specifically, he implores us to walk worthy. As noted earlier, walk is peripateō, “to walk about,” and figuratively speaks of how we conduct ourselves as we walk through life. The Greek behind worthy is axios, which in Classical Greek carried the idea of balancing scales, of one side of the scale counter-balancing the other side.[9] We are therefore to walk in balance to something. And to what are we to walk in balance? What is the “counter-balance” on the scales? The vocation wherewith [we] are called. Vocation translates the Greek klēsis, which means “a call or invitation to a banquet.” With only a few exceptions,[10] Paul uses this word and related words (such as the verb kaleō for the word called in our text) to refer to the Divine calling of the elect to salvation. So, the full thrust of Paul’s statement here is that we are to walk in balance to the salvation to which we’ve been called; in other words, we are to walk as believers ought to walk. And the first way we are to walk is in unity.

Just as a broken bone in the physical body brings pain and debilitation, it is a terrible thing to fracture the Body of Christ through disunity. Once the doctrinal truth of Christ is settled, there had better be unity, not warring factions (as in I Corinthian church), not individuals fighting for whatever reason (as the two women in Philippians 4:2-3), rather true unity.

It’s also significant that Paul refers to himself for the second time as the prisoner of the Lord. Why a second mention of this? It is a simple reminder that a worthy walk will be costly, but the blessings far outweigh the suffering. “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18).

Oh, how important unity is! It is to be the practical result of a doctrinal reality. May we do all we can to keep that unity. This leads us right to a third principle.

III. The Maintenance of Unity (vs.2-3a, c)

With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

We cannot over-emphasize these two verses. The unity of Christians has been a perennial problem since the early days of Christianity. In fact, as early as Acts 6 unity was threatened. Additionally, in almost every one of Paul’s Epistles there is something about unity. The most vivid picture is the analogy of the human body, which is not only mentioned here but elaborated in I Corinthians 12, where we see three principles: there is one body but many members, each member has a different function but still edifies the whole, and one member out of sorts effects the whole.

Tragically, there is little true unity in the Church, that is the Body of Christ, today. There are preachers who break fellowship over minor points of doctrine and those who practice “secondary separation,” which means that they won’t fellowship with one group because that group fellowships with another group. To illustrate tongue-in-cheek, I’ve seen this go even further to “thirdary” and “fourthdary” separation; one group won’t fellowship with another group because they fellowship with another group that fellowships with another group that fellowships with another group. There is also disunity in many Local Churches, which is caused by petty squabbles over nothing, which in turn comes from spiritual immaturity. It is said that it was Spurgeon who first said this little jingle, and how true it is:

      To dwell above with saints we love,
            O that will be glory!
      But to dwell below with saints we know,

Well, that’s another story!

As we saw earlier, then, we are to “[endeavor] to keep the unity” (v. 3). It is the responsibility of every believer to diligently, zealously, absorbingly “guard as with a fortress” the unity that Christ has provided. But now the question arises, how can we maintain (“keep”) the unity that God has produced in Christ? The answer lies in our text, where we see the “Fruit of the Spirit” of Galatians 5:22-23 in action. Let’s first briefly examine that text and then see it applied here in Ephesians.

The “Fruit of the Spirit”

At the very core of the Christian life is the “Fruit of the Spirit,” as Paul wrote to the Galatian believers:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law (Gal. 5:22-23).

Here is the very essence of Christian living because it is the very essence of Christ’s own character. In his classic reference Bible, C. I. Scofield writes:

Christian character is not mere moral or legal correctness, but the possession and manifestation of the graces of vv. 22-23. Taken together they present a moral portrait of Christ, and may be understood as the apostle’s explanation of 2:20, “Not I, but Christ,” and as a definition of “fruit” in John 15:1-8. This character is possible because of the believer’s vital union with Christ (John 15:5; 1 Cor 12:12 -13), and is wholly the fruit of the Spirit. “Fruit” (singular), in contrast with “works” (plural, v. 19), suggests that the Christian’s life in the Spirit is unified in purpose and direction in contrast with the life in the flesh, with its inner conflicts and frustrations.

Particularly important is that last statement, that “fruit” is singular to show the unified Christian life. These are not the fruits of the spirit, rather the fruit of the Spirit; they are a unified whole in the Believer’s life. The Galatian believers had been “bewitched” (3:1) by false teachers that following the Law was necessary for right living. But Paul makes it clear here that it is not the constraints of the Law that produce Christ-like character, neither our efforts that produces it, but the Holy Spirit working in us.

Just as the “the works of the flesh” in 5:19-21 fall into three general areas (sex, religion, and human relationships), “the fruit of the spirit” also fall into three categories. First, “love,” “joy,” and “peace” are personal. By this we mean that they are the real basis of our growth in Christ and are the foundation of all the others. They come only by personal experience of Christ and are absolutely unique to Christianity. May we never forget this uniqueness. No other “religion” or faith can profess, much less manifest, these three. They form the very foundation of all that happens in the Christian life.

Second, “longsuffering,” “gentleness,” and “goodness” are social. They illustrate the command of our Lord, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” They describe how we should appear to and how we then deal with those around us.

Third, “faith,” “meekness,” and “temperance” are philosophical. These are given to show the basic contrast between the attitudes of God and the attitudes of the world. These three philosophical principles are the exact opposites of the world’s philosophies.

The “Fruit of the Spirit” in Our Text

It is truly amazing that four of these nine characteristics appear in our text and that there is at least one from each category. The obvious reason for this is that these are the characteristics that will maintain unity.

First, from the personal category, we see love and peace. There can be no doubt why love is mentioned first. The first characteristic in Galatians 5:22 is love because from it all the others flow. As Paul declared just a few verses earlier, “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Gal. 5:14). We submit, therefore, that the underlying characteristic of unity is love. As we have studied before, the Greek word agape is “a self‑emptying self‑sacrifice.” As we’ve also noted, God’s love can be defined as, “A self‑emptying self‑sacrifice in which God gave of Himself in the form of His only begotten Son Who gave His life for us.”

Now we read that to maintain unity we are to have and practice the same kind of love toward other believers. Just think, how can there ever be disunity when we all have “a self‑emptying self‑sacrifice?” To put it in the reverse, when there is disunity, there is an obvious lack of “a self‑emptying self‑sacrifice.” If there is some rumbling going on in the body, if there is some fuss going on, if a fight breaks, it is because we are thinking of ourselves instead of someone else.

Paul adds something else. We might think that to speak of love would be enough, but Paul knew that it wouldn’t be enough because he understood human nature. So he adds that we are also to be forbearing one another. The Greek behind forbearing (anechomai) means “to hold one’s self upright, to bear, to endure.” This is the same word Paul uses in II Timothy 4:3 to describe people who will not “endure [put up with] sound doctrine” but will seek teachers who will tickle their ears. The idea here, then, is that sometimes we just put up with each other, that we bear with each other in misunderstandings, problems, and conflicts, that we love each other and sacrifice ourselves for them anyway. This doesn’t mean we just put up with it but still boil within, rather we forbear in love. Without this kind of love and forbearing, unity will be destroyed and God’s work right along with it.

Paul mentions another personal characteristic, peace. This, too, we have encounter before in 1:2 and 2:14. The Greek is eirene, “a state of tranquility; the opposite of rage and war.” This word is related to the Hebrew word shalom, a common Hebrew greeting. This word, however, means not so much the opposite of war but of any disturbance in the tranquility of God’s people. As we noted back in our study of 2:14, first, because we are in Christ, there is tranquility and harmony between God and man (1:2), and second, because we are in Christ, there is tranquility and harmony between Jew and Gentile (2:14). We now see the third step in the progression: there is, and must continue to be, tranquility between all believers because of Christ. This is not just the opposite of war, not just the opposite of “going at one another,” not just the opposite of suppressing our seething resentment of someone else, rather a tranquility, a freedom from any agitation or turmoil. We must allow the Holy Spirit to maintain this tranquility, because it is the bond that holds us together.

The word bond translates syndesmos. In Classical Greek, from the time of Homer onwards (8^th–7^th Century), the root desmos meant “chain.”[11] In the New Testament, it meant “band, bond, ligament.”[12] With the prefix sun (“with”), syndesmos means “that which binds together.” In a negative sense, we see it in Acts 8:23, where someone is enslaved by a habit or attitude. Peter says of Simon the sorcerer, who was not a truly converted man, “I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.” In Colossians 2:19, it refers to a tendon or ligament of the bones that holds the body together.

This, then, is the picture of true unity. It’s not some superficial or sappy sentimentality, rather a bond, the very ligaments of the body, which hold us together. One commentator notes that the American Indians spoke of peace as a “chain of friendship.”[13] That is, indeed, what the true Christian has with other Christians.

This challenges us that a lack of peace in the Body is sin, no matter what the reason. A vivid example of this appears in Philippians 4:2-3:

I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers.

The only problem in the Philippian church was a single unnamed conflict between two women, but that one conflict threatened to do serious damage. Paul obviously doesn’t tell us what the problem was because it didn’t matter. Whether one woman was right and the other wrong didn’t matter either. Both were wrong because they were causing disunity in the body.

As Paul wrote the fractured Corinthians, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. 1:10). When we are thinking more about what we think and what we feel, there will be division. As Paul writes later, we are being wise in the world, and that’s foolishness (3:18-20). How many Christians there are who think they are wise in this age, that is, wise in contemporary human wisdom. But Paul says that they are just deceiving themselves. As a pastor, I am constantly troubled (and quite honestly terrified) about what disagreements and difference of opinion over paint color, carpet fiber, pew design, window trim, and other such ridiculous matters can do to church unity. Such things are merely personal taste and worldly wisdom and are foolishness to God. Such things can destroy unity in a heartbeat, so we must always be on guard.

Second, from the social category of the “fruit of the spirit,” there is longsuffering. The Greek here is makrothumia, a compound word from makro, meaning “long,” and thumos, meaning “temper.” The idea, then, is simple; we are to be long-tempered in contrast to short-tempered, to suffer long instead of being hasty to anger and vengeance. This is one of the social characteristics of “the fruit of the spirit” because this is how we are to react to people and how we are to treat them. To maintain unity, we will set aside “self,” set aside our own needs, and be willing to suffer last place instead of first place, even to look like we’re wrong if it will maintain unity. Again, we’re not taking about doctrinal issues here—that is the point in the next passage (4:4-6)—rather we are speaking here of things that don’t matter, the little things of personality and human interaction. What a marvelous testimony it is to be longsuffering, to have the ability to be long‑tempered. “Love suffers long” (1 Cor. 13:4) and we must be “swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath” (James 1:19).

Chrysostom, that great 4^th Century preacher, wonderfully defined this as the spirit that has the power to take revenge but does not do so. Commentator William Barclay offers a homey illustration. Have you ever seen a puppy and a large dog together? The puppy barks that high pitch puppy yap, pesters the big dog, and even nips him. But while the big dog could snap the puppy’s neck with one bite and a shake, he just bears it with dignity. Perhaps you’ve even seen the big dog look up at you with an expression that says, “Look what I have to put up with.” That is longsuffering, the attitude that bears attack, assault, affront, and abuse without bitterness or complaint.

When we are impatient with people and when we are short tempered, it is really because we are impatient with God. We are at that moment not trusting and not leaning upon Him to give us strength. A verse, which is not quoted enough and lived consistently by Christians, is Isaiah 40:31: “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; and they shall walk and not faint.” When we wait upon God and allow Him to rule in our lives, and let Him “right the wrongs” that people do to us, then He renews our strength in three stages: a) During the easy times we will soar like eagles. It’s quite easy to live for the Lord when all goes well, but it is also during these times that we must lean upon Him lest we become puffed‑up; b) Then during the everyday difficulties of life we may not soar as eagles but we will still run and not grow tired if we are leaning on Him; c) And then during the serious problems and tragedies we will still be able to walk along without collapsing if we are leaning on Christ.

Again, what a testimony it is to those around us when we can wait upon the Lord and manifest Him in our lives. This “social grace” comes only by allowing the Holy Spirit to produce it in us.

Third, from the philosophical category of the “fruit of the spirit,” there is meekness. The common error is that meekness means “weakness,” but this could not be further from the truth. The Greek is prautēs (or praotēs), which means gentleness and mildness. It has been truthfully stated many times that, “Meekness is not weakness, but strength under control.” The Greek was used, for example, of horses that were broken and trained and also of a strong but mild medicine, both of which have strength but is under control.

The ultimate example of meekness is the Lord Jesus in His humanity. As that well-known song proclaims:

He could have called ten thousand angels,

To destroy the world, and set Him free;

He could have called ten thousand angels,

But he died alone for you and me.

Our Savior had the power of the universe at His command. Is that not strength? But still Scripture says He was meek. While our Lord will one day be vindicated and glorified, instead of being vindicated at that moment, He submitted to the greater need of redeeming the lost. In addition to this our Savior was strong physically. The liberals and the world would have us believe Jesus was weak and even effeminate, but could a weakling carry a timber weighing as much as 150‑200 pounds? Jesus did! (see John 19:17). However, even with all that strength, Jesus was meek, for His strength was under control.

Again, meekness is strength and power under control. It is the opposite of self‑interest, self‑assertiveness, and self‑direction. What is needed today are Christians who are meek and humble, Christians who know the power they have in Christ and the Holy Spirit, and Christians who have that power under control.

This word is inseparably coupled with another word—lowliness. The Greek here (tapeinophrosune) pictures modesty, humility, and lowliness of mind, having a humble opinion of one’s self, a deep sense of one’s littleness. Think of that! Not a false humility such as, “Oh, I’m not all that great,” rather a deep sense of how little we really are.

The story is told of a group of people who went in to see Beethoven’s home in Germany. After the tour guide had showed them Beethoven’s piano and had finished his lecture, he asked if any of them would like to come up and sit at the piano for a moment and play a chord or two. There was a sudden rush to the piano by all the people except a gray-haired gentleman with long, flowing hair. The guide finally asked him, “Wouldn’t you like to sit down at the piano and play a few notes?” He answered, “No, I don't feel worthy.” No one recognized him, but that man was Ignace Paderewski (1860-1941), Polish statesman, composer, and celebrated concert pianist. While he was the only person present man really was worthy to play the piano of Beethoven, he didn’t think so.[14] That is lowliness. And if a concert pianist can think that he is lowly in the shadow of Beethoven, how little are we in the shadow of our Lord? Are our feelings, views, and opinions important enough to destroy unity?

The most fascinating aspect of the Greek word behind lowliness is that, as Greek scholar Richard Trench points out, “No Greek writer employed it before the Christian era, and apart from the influence of Christian writers, it is not used later.”[15] The reason this was true was that to the Greek and Roman mind such an attitude was synonymous with weakness and cowardice. It was so abhorrent to their mind that they had no term to describe it. That philosophy still lives today in the “self-image” craze that we noted back in 3:8. And that is precisely why this is in the philosophical category of “the fruit of the Spirit.” It is the very opposite of the world’s basic philosophy of life—the exaltation of self. These words from Martyn Lloyd-Jones should challenge us:

“Lowliness” is humility, and especially humility of mind . . . It means modesty. It is the opposite of self-esteem, self-assertion, and pride. Humility is one of the chief of all the Christian virtues; it is the hallmark of the child of God. Humility means having a poor opinion of yourself, and of your powers and faculties . . . It is the opposite of what is found in the so-called man of the world; it is the opposite of the worldly spirit which urges man to trust in himself, and the believe in himself. It is the opposite of all aggressiveness and self-advertisement and ambition and all the brazenness of life at the present time. There is nothing sadder about this present age than the appalling absence of humility; and when this same lack in found the Church of God, it is the greatest tragedy of all.[16]

Lloyd-Jones said and wrote that in the middle of the 20^th Century, and look where we are today, how “self” has been enthroned, just like the Greeks and Romans.

There is one other observation we should make. Notice Paul says all lowliness and meekness. The Greek behind all is pas. When used with an article, it conveys the idea of the sum total of something. Used without an article, however, as it is here, it means “each” or “every.” Paul is saying, then, “every kind of lowliness and meekness possible, in each and every situation, we are to be as lowly and meek as possible.” Someone has said that humility “is the first, second, and third essential of the Christian life.”[17]

Humility truly is elusive, is it not? Why? Because if we focus on it too much, it can turn into the very opposite—pride. I once heard a preacher say from the pulpit, “I have many shortcomings, but one virtue I know I have is humility.” Sadly, he missed the whole point. Humility is a virtue we seek but can never claim to have. Probably the best we can ever say is, “God is still working on me.”

Similarly, the story is told of a young man who fancied himself a preacher and who stood up at pastor’s conference and announced, “I am against education. I don’t believe in education. I read no books except the Bible; I don’t profess to know nothing about literature or anything of that kind; I am just an ignorant man. But the Lord has taken me up, and is using me, and I am not at all interested in schools, or colleges, or education. I am proud to be just what I am.” An older preacher then arose and said, “Do I understand that our dear young brother is proud of his ignorance? If so, all I can say is that he has a great deal to be proud of.”[18] To our shame, we have many such men in pulpits today. But as we saw in an earlier study, “Knowledge is the discovery of ignorance,” and it is only the humble mind that recognizes that truth.

In stark contrast, a story is also told of John Wesley. After the memorial service for George Whitefield, a staunch supporter of Whitefield approached Wesley, who had strongly disagreed with Whitefield’s Calvinistic views, and asked him, “Mr. Wesley, do you think you will see Mr. Whitefield in heaven?” “No,” Wesley answered quickly. “I was afraid you would say that,” lamented the enquirer. But then Wesley added, “George Whitefield will be so near the throne of God, that men like me will never catch a glimpse of him.”[19] May such humility characterize us all.

There we have the Grace of Unity, its Meaning, Motive, and Maintenance. Without love, peace, [forbearance], longsuffering, meekness, and lowliness we will not keep the unity of the Spirit, and that will have grave consequences. If our Lord could bring unity between God and man, between Jew and Gentile, and now between all believers, is it too much to ask that we do all we can to guard that unity?

Back to Ephesians Back to Home Page